memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Registry
I'm going to try to make sense of the different pages with similar content (NCC, List of registry codes and this one). Especially the nomenclature needs to be cleaned up ('registry code' vs 'registry prefix'). -- Harry 23:22, 27 Sep 2004 (CEST) :I'd suggest "registry number", after the fashion of "side number" or "tail number" in aviation. --trekphiler, 17/11/05 Could the Romulans IRW and the Klingons IKS be added?-Rebelstrike2005 22:34, 11 Feb 2005 (GMT) :Not on this page -- neither of those is associated with any registry number -- perhaps a unified page for simply registry related concepts -- simplify the page name so all information can be contained on it, and leave the more specific names (registry number and registry codes) as redirects to it. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 00:12, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT) Do we know that the 'W' in IRW stands for warbird? It could be 'warship'-Rebelstrike2005 14:41, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT) I've seen the NCC referring to Naval Construction Contract, too, but never in a canon source. It was in connection with USN aircraft, as I recall. I also recall reading Gene made the same connection, hence the NCC usage. --trekphiler, 17/11/05 Ship numbers While I recognize why it was done, the registry numbers are nonsense. The so-called "Enterprise-B" would never be identified 1701B, nor referred to as "B", any more than CVN-65 is "Enterprise-B", when she is the second aircraft carrier by that name. And I flat refuse to believe Starfleet has built over 74000 ships, which Voyager's NCC-74656 demands. (Picture building 74000 supertankers and you have an idea of the industrial effort required.) --trekphiler, 16/11/05 :I don't see any reason that Starfleet should be required to follow the registry rules of the US Navy. :I also think its kind of small minded to think that just because 21st century humans couldn't build 70,000 ships now, they'll never be able to. -- the point of Star Trek is that, in the future, by cooperating with all intelligent life, we'll probably be able to do amazing things that people thinking in the limitations of the US and 21st century technology will unfortunately never be able to imagine. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:28, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Small-minded? I'm presuming a ship with capabilities fantastic today. It's precisely because of that I disbelieve the large numbers. The energy consumed in building a ship like Picard's Enterprise must be incredible, & even at a vastly increased scale, humanity's resources would not be limitless. My comparison, I think, is valid: nuclear carriers & supertankers are at the limits of human capabilities today, & thus are rare; so, too, would ships like Picard's Enterprise be at that time. --trekphiler, 17/11/05 All ships in the Federation would not be Starfleet ships (unless I am much mistaken), and shipbuilding would be very much reduced, I'd argue, due to increases of complexity, capability, and cost by orders of magnitude. My supertanker example, I think, stands: in the '30s, dozens of ships would be needed to do the job one VLCC could do. The entire Task Force 58 at Leyte Gulf in 1944 would be overmatched by CVN-65 Enterprise. (Which makes nonsense of the "thousands" of ships in fleet actions of "DS9"...) Picture a ship a thousand or ten thousand times more complex and capable than a modern nuclear aircraft carrier, and multiply it by 74000; do you believe that? I don't. --trekphiler, 16/11/05 :I do. Anything else you said here seems patently irrelevant. The Dominion War was scaled much larger with any hisotrical wars you're familiar with -- why assume it was limited by 1940s human capabilities. ::I'm not limiting it to 1940s capabilities. You've missed my point. CVN-65 Enterprise is vastly more capable than CV-6 Enterprise was in 1944. NCC-74205 Defiant is incomparably more capable than CVN-65. This argues for smaller numbers, not larger. If anything, "DS9"'s writers were using the 1944 example in an effort to be impressive, without understanding how much capabilities have changed. --trekphiler, 17/11/05 It occurs to me that the registry numbers don't necessarily mean the ship was built. A registry number could be reserved for a 'planned' ship that ends up not leaving the drawing board, or only having the beginnings of its hull assembled. Also, registry numbers could be applied to ships that are annexed into Starfleet--any ships the Bajorans have when they join, for example, could be inducted into the unified numbering scheme. Speculation, of course. And even then, the number still seems kind of high. SpaceCommie3000 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC) ::That's an interesting guess. What are the facts on this? Are there any references on what these mean or are we building it all on assumption? There seem to be very few direct citations in the article itself and as I stated in the Changes section of this talk-page, these assumptions are affecting information on other pages. Jaf 00:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf USGS? Just a thought, but could USGS stand for United States Geological Ship? It's entirely possible that they are still in operation even in the 24th century, although on a much larger scale. --Mada101 13:30, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC) Classes Does anyone know which ship was first to receive the FRAM refit? I'd suggest the changes were so extensive as to remove any vessels so refitted from the Constitution class entire. I'd also argue, despite superficial similarity, it's unlikely NCC-1071 Constellation, NCC-1371 Republic, and NCC-1701 Enterprise were actually the same class. Recall the American submarine classes Gato, Balao, and Tench; superficially similar (indeed almost indistinguishable), they were different enough in detail to be separate classes. If canon establishes Constitution as NCC-1700, Constellation cannot be the same class, not when she is 700 contract numbers earlier; similarly, neither is Republic. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05 :One possible excuse permits the above case, as I see it: NCC-1700 Constitution replaces a same-named ship, permitting confusion; nevertheless, a different class. --squadfifteen, 16/11/05 :I am inclined to limit the Constitution''s thus: ''Constitution NCC-1700 Enterprise NCC-1701 Hood NCC-1703 Exeter NCC-1706 Lexington NCC-1709 Kongo NCC-1710 Yorktown NCC-1717 plus one or two unnamed ships. I am disinclined to include NCC-1764 Defiant and NCC-1831 Intrepid because they are too high-numbered, given the size and complexity of Constitution (and what I've read of Gene's intent there only be 12 of her class at a time), unless we accept they are replacing losses (in which case, why not reuse existing names? or do they?). :I further exclude NCC-956 Eagle and NCC-1071 Constellation as too low-numbered; they belong to a different class, perhaps joined by NCC-1371 Republic (which I would construe as lead ship of a later group, given Constitution; on that basis, Eagle might be, too). :Furthermore, I propose a third group: Farragut NCC-1647 Potemkin NCC-1657 Excalibur NCC-1664 Endeavour NCC-1695 These are likely replacing losses in the Republic class. :I suggest the relationship between these ships is comparable to Gato: changes in weapons spec, propulsion, mainframe, hull framing, and so forth, but superficially identical except in detail. (Perhaps examination of canon photographs would reveal?) --squadfifteen, 16/11/05 As I recall, the so-called "Enterprise-A" was a new design, not a Constitution. --trekphiler, 16/11/05 It's intriguing to me "STTOS" with Constitution comes closest to an actual naming system: historical ships. (I reject Excalibur as named for Arthur Pendragon's sword; she was a ship, & it is the earlier ship she would be named for, regardless whether the earlier Excalibur was named for the sword...) --squadfifteen, 16/11/05 :I'm sorry. Memory Alpha:Policy states that MA is not a vehicle for speculation -- we can't really assume any ships we didnt see or didnt learn the capabilities of actually were modified different or similarly to other vessels. We only try to include information from the episodes and movies, not guesswork based on an unrelated Navy. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:28, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Excuse me for taking seriously the "complete Star Trek site" claim. The "guesswork" is based on internal evidence & a legitimate parallel (or do you think Starfleet has no historical antecedents?). I've seen posted information from outside the canon; I'm just trying to reconcile what I observe. Too "small-minded" for you? --squadfifteen, 17/11/05 ;Captain Mike is just full of shit. He loves to speculate more than anyone I've heard. And yes, Star Trek borrows heavily from current naval traditions.--Mike Nobody 01:55, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC) Canadian registry Was the Canadian ships' registries ever mentioned on Trek? If it wasn't, then it doesn't belong here. --From Andoria with Love 03:31, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC) NC It says here that NC is used for ships of the Earth Starfleet. What canon evidence is there of this? The only registries I can think of from Enterprise are NX-01 for Enterprise, and NX-02 for Columbia. Since the Columbia is not a prototype like the Enterprise, I argue that NX does not mean prototype for Earth Starfleet, but rather a ship of the NX class. At the very least, I don't remember ever seeing NC-?? in Enterprise. --OuroborosCobra 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC) * NC-05 --Alan del Beccio 11:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) NSP? There is no mention of the NSP prefix for the T'Pau (NSP-17938), a Vulcan ship from the TNG episode "Unification." This should be included. Changes There are a couple of pages around here where we assume two ships with the same name and of the same class are different ships because they have a different registry number, while this seems likely, I don't know if i'm satisfied. Frankly, I don't know of a canon reference to the fact that a registry number cannot be changed. Why should we assume a ship cannot be re-registred? Jaf 00:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf :Is there any basis to assume the opposite? Do we know of any Federation ship that had its registry changed? At the moment, I can't think of any... -- Cid Highwind 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) My hope was that assumptions could be avoided from either angle. Jaf 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf :In this specific case, how would you do that? You either write the article as if it is the same ship, or as if it is a different ship. In each case, you could add a background note stating that the opposite might be the case, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to decide for one or the other first... BTW, what ships are we talking about here, exactly? At the moment, I can only think of the Miranda class USS Saratoga. -- Cid Highwind 13:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)